Who is, legally and morally, responsible for the inumerable human losses, which are atributed to the manifesting within Greece, and probably elsewhere also, Genocide?

According to existing evidence:

- The British government perpetrates, through ages, settler-colonialism.

- The British government, for perpetrating the settler-colonialism recruites, for hers colonizing armies, racially homogeneous groups taken from specific races which she calls “marcial races” and considers that their members act as “perfect fighting machines”.

- The British government conducts involuntary human experiments even to unsuspected subjects, and participates or permits the smuggling of human tissues/organs.

- The British government, currently, is being colonising Greece by perpetrating the war crime of immigrating settlers, there.

- The British government instigates, gang-stalking and enforced dissapearances, against legitimate political dissidents.

- The membership at some of the “marcial races” is, according to public testimonies, obligatory and also, according to one, unverified testimony, at certain races the refusall to enlist is punishable by death.

- I am an eye witness of crimes which have been commited, in Greece, in the past by, racially homogeneous, colonizing army’s groups of members. I am also an eye witness of the existence, in Greece, of criminal, front-organizations which were, mostly, recruited by racially homogeneous, colonizing army’s groups of members. And I am also an eye witness of criminal activity which has been perpetrated, within Greece’s social/administrative/political foundations, by, mostly, racially homogeneous, colonizing army’s group of members.

- In Greece a dictatorship has been established with the British government being the instigator. The political elections’ results are being prepared and verified, since some decades ago, by a single Greek private company; it is forbiden for the citizens to gain access to the content of their judicial files and of their criminal records; the Greek Constitution law is being, systematically and overtly, violated; the Greece’s enormous mineral wealth is being, deliberately, non-exploited while the Greek citizens suffer from the leathal consiquences of an instrumental economic crisis; most of Greece’s natural leadership’s members have died by ways which conform to the term “plausibly deniable murders”.

As being a moral and lawful citizen, I wish to disclosure publicly the knowledge that I may posses, about the colonizing criminality which is being perpetrated in Greece (and probably elsewhere), in order to protect my fellow human beings and to contribute to the rescuing of their lives.

However, due to the existing, British code of silence, namely Omertà, I definitely know, by my bitter past experience, that if, I publicly disclosure even the one hundredth of all the specific to the colonizing criminality knowledge that I may posses, then, almost certainly, my life expectancy shall drop to two hours, in the best case.

Alternatively, if, I disclose publicly, the information that I may have though, indirectly, meaning, by using, instead of the perpetrators’ and the front-organizations’ names, an effective combination of their common traits (able to alarm the candidate victims and to provide them with adequate information in order for them to employ the correct, legitimate and non-violent, preventive measures for rescuing their lives), then, the legislators who made the “hate speech” laws along with the Security Authorites and the Judicial Authorities, shall, most probably, persecute me legally for, supposedly, perpetrating (an actually non-existent) “hate speech”; while, at the same time, I am morally and legally obliged to actively and promptly prevent, one or more, crimes which the public disclosure of my knowledge could prevent.

According to my opinion, some of the European Continent’s governments do nothing to protect their citizens from the contemporary settler-colonialism. And even worst, the majority of the European citizens do nothing to protect/support/promote the very few left, European political dissidents which, most probably, posses adequate knowledge for obstructing the globalisation of colonialism.

This, unexpected and simultaneous, idleness, of some governments and some citizens, is, according to my opinion, responsible for the perpetuation of the contemporary Genocides where ever they manifest.

Christos Boumpoulis

economist

P.S.: I condemn violence and I promote, exclusively, the Human Rights, the rule of Law, Peace, Freedom, Cooperation and frugal Prosperity.

Exhibits

Exhibit 1

According to Brendan O'Neill, “The Gurkhas have always been treated as second class, as loyal but peculiar, as a race apart, as less intelligent than the white leaders of the British Army but a bit more trustworthy than the everyday wogs of Nepal, Burma and India. Indeed, the Gurkhas have long been an institutional expression of inequality: they were made and sustained, not by British decency, but by British racism.

The Gurkhas are a creation of Britain's old colonial policy of 'divide and rule'. Hailing from Nepal, and named after the eighth-century Hindu warrior saint Guru Gorakhnath, they were first recruited into the British Army following the Anglo-Nepalese war of 1814 to 1816, when British forces defeated Gurkha forces yet were impressed by their courage and tenacity. The Gurkhas were named a 'Martial Race' – that is, a race of people who were naturally brave, loyal and bloodthirsty. In the subcontinent under British rule from the early 1800s to the mid-twentieth century, the British tended to divide local peoples into two camps: 'Martial Races', those considered well-built for fighting, and 'Non-Martial Races', those judged to have 'sedentary lifestyles' and thus to be unsuited to serving in colonial armies: too slothful, inactive, uncreative, lazy.

However, even when the Gurkhas were championed, it tended to be on the basis that their non-European racial features – their status as a Martial Race – made them perfect fighting machines.”.

Exhibit 2

According to Lionel Caplan (Warrior Gentlemen: Gurkhas in the Western Imagination, Lionel Caplan, Berghahn Books, 1995), “In the 1860s, one British officer said 'Asiatic soldiers' do not have 'the same pluck or moral courage as the European... unless drugged and maddened by opiates beforehand”.

Exhibit 3

According to John Obioma Ukawuilulu, “Settlers regarded themselves to be naturally superior to the "natives," as the British called their African colonial subjects. They saw the Africans as people who must be subjected and who were good only for being domestics to the white settlers. The methods of oppression and repression by the European settler populations were not known in precolonial Africa. At least the internal conquerors in Africa prior to the Europeans did not see themselves as genetically superior to the conquered. The white settlers appropriated to themselves to the exclusion of the Africans all the good and arable lands. These lands were designated "crown property." This practice was notorious in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Kenya. Some of the postcolonial and independent African countries did the same thing; government officials nationalized huge tracts of communal lands and distributed it among themselves, their families, and their cronies. This occurred in Nigeria, for example, when the government passed the Land Use Decree of 1977.

The settler colonies later unilaterally declared independence from Britain. The first British colony in Africa to do this was South Africa. In 1910, after the Boer War (1899– 1902), the British gave all administrative and political powers to the European settler population in the provinces of Natal, Cape, OrangeFreeState, andTransvaal. However, the British removed Swaziland, Basutoland (present-day Lesotho), and Bechuanaland (present-day Botswana) from the Union of South Africa. These provinces became independent countries later.

The settler British colonies in Africa that declared their independence from Britain instituted minority governments. The worst case of minority governments was the apartheid government of South Africa. The South African government under the Boer-led Nationalist Party legalized the separation of the races and the domination of the majority black population by the minority white population. In South Africa whites made up less than 20 percent of the population and the blacks 80 percent. Under the apartheid system, blacks were forced to live on nonarable lands and in urban ghettoes or townships. "Miscegenation" and marriages between the races were legally prohibited, and blacks had no rights in the running of the affairs of the country. The white minority government used violence and terrorism against blacks. They arrested, tortured, and killed innocent black men, women, and children. Later the barren lands allotted to blacks were divided into Bantustans and granted nominal independence”.

Exhibit 4

For 10,000 years the population of the island of Tasmania lived in complete isolation from the rest of humanity. In 1803 the government of Britain began to settle Australia with criminals. 73 years later the last Tasmanian died. This completed the total annihilation of the residents of Tasmania 6,000 in total, by the Australian settlers.

After a visit to Australia, Charles Darwin, 19th century British biologist and geologist, said, “Death pursues the native in every place where the European sets foot.” On the visit, he met the European settlers that had settled on the hunting and gathering lands, and sacred places of the indigenous peoples.

At the end of the 18th century, the British began to settle the island. Mainly, they sent criminals who had to be removed from mainland Australian colonies due to severe crimes, as well as a number of seal hunters. This encounter between two extremely different populations was murderous from the very beginning. The European settlers kidnapped Tasmanian children for servants and women for concubines; they killed or mutilated the men and conquered their hunting land in an attempt to expel them from their territory. A lone shepherd killed nineteen Tasmanians with a nail rifle. Four other shepherds ambushed a group of natives, killed thirty of them and dumped their bodies off a cliff known today as Victory Hill.

Hundreds of Aboriginal tribes who lived in Australia were destroyed when the British colonists arrived. They lived a very different life to the thousands of the British who settled there in the 19th century. The settlers established large farms on what was once their collective agricultural land, challenging and eventually destroying their largely nomadic society. Mounting tensions led to mutual violence, however the settlers prevailed and expelled them to less fertile lands. The British saw the Aboriginals as inferior and treated them brutally. During the 19th century, the dozens of recorded massacres resulted in the deaths of at least 10,000 Aboriginals, including women and children. Indigenous Australians found themselves living on reserves and rapidly losing their culture, language and native land.

Appendix

Turning Gurkhas into a new 'Victim Race'

Brendan O'Neill

The bizarre Battle of the Excluded Gurkha, led by Joanna Lumley, sheds light on the crisis of meaning in today's Tory and Labour parties.

First things first: all Gurkhas and their families should be free to settle in Britain. They should benefit fully from Britain's social services, healthcare and education system. All discrepancies in pay and pensions between British-born soldiers and foreign-born Gurkhas should be ironed out (1). If Britain is going to employ non-British citizens in its military forces, then it must guarantee them equal treatment and pay, instead of keeping the Gurkhas as a pet caste of money-saving, second-class military men.

However, the current Battle of the Excluded Gurkha, the campaign led by the clipped-toned actress Joanna Lumley to secure right of residence in the UK for retired Gurkhas, has become about something more than equal treatment. It has become bound up with contemporary politics – in particular with the development of a shallow brand of 'New Conservatism' and with the utter collapse of the New Labour government's moral and popular authority.

The Gurkha campaign shows the extent to which the traditional wing of the elite – the Telegraph-reading, Tory-supporting officer classes, for whom the Gurkhas have always been 'loyal friends' – has embraced the politics of victimology over old-fashioned ideals of militarism and superiority. And it shows the extent to which the current ruling section of the elite – the non-officer-classes of New Labour – is now so bereft of purpose and direction that it can be rattled by the so-called 'forces of conservatism' it claimed to have defeated in the late 1990s.

Not for the first time, the Gurkhas are being used as a proxy army – only this time not to defend the interests of British imperialism, but rather to try to uncover some idea of 'British values' here at home, and to shift the pieces on the depressing chessboard that is contemporary British politics.

Reading about the current pro-Gurkha campaign – led by Lumley, daughter of Major James Rutherford Lumley, who served with the 6th Gurkha Rifles in the British Indian Army, and backed by virtually the entire media – you could be forgiven for thinking that the Gurkhas have only recently been treated badly. That in Major Lumley's days in India, or 'Inja', they had a lovely life and it is only under the tyranny of uncaring, bureaucratic New Labourites that they have been turned into second-class soldiers.

Not so. The Gurkhas have always been treated as second class, as loyal but peculiar, as a race apart, as less intelligent than the white leaders of the British Army but a bit more trustworthy than the everyday wogs of Nepal, Burma and India. Indeed, the Gurkhas have long been an institutional expression of inequality: they were made and sustained, not by British decency, but by British racism.

The Gurkhas are a creation of Britain's old colonial policy of 'divide and rule'. Hailing from Nepal, and named after the eighth-century Hindu warrior saint Guru Gorakhnath, they were first recruited into the British Army following the Anglo-Nepalese war of 1814 to 1816, when British forces defeated Gurkha forces yet were impressed by their courage and tenacity. The Gurkhas were named a 'Martial Race' – that is, a race of people who were naturally brave, loyal and bloodthirsty. In the subcontinent under British rule from the early 1800s to the mid-twentieth century, the British tended to divide local peoples into two camps: 'Martial Races', those considered well-built for fighting, and 'Non-Martial Races', those judged to have 'sedentary lifestyles' and thus to be unsuited to serving in colonial armies: too slothful, inactive, uncreative, lazy (2).

This discovery of 'Martial Races' occurred across the British Empire. Sikhs in India were also judged to be a 'Warrior Race' who could be trusted to join colonial armies in order to crush uprisings amongst the 'unruly' sections of Indian society; the Masai in Kenya were also judged a 'Warrior Race' when they were considered useful for shoring up British rule in Kenya (3). Not surprisingly, the distinction between Martial Races and Non-Martial Races corresponded neatly with those who generally supported British colonialism, or who benefited from it, and those who did not: in other words, behind the separation of Third World peoples into 'brave' camps and 'sedentary' camps, there lurked the low politics of divide and rule. The Gurkhas became more institutionalised into the British military than any other 'Martial Race', forming their own brigade and fighting in the First World War, the Second World War, the colonial wars, the Falklands, Kosovo and Iraq. They became the colonial people employed to put down other colonial peoples.

The Gurkhas were discussed in explicitly racial terms. For nineteenth-century British colonialists, the inhabitants of south Asia were, for the most part, a disgusting and unthinking mass, lacking the intelligence or humanitarian instincts of the white race. In the 1860s, one British officer said 'Asiatic soldiers' do not have 'the same pluck or moral courage as the European... unless drugged and maddened by opiates beforehand' (4). One British observer said Indians and other south Asians 'live in a different stage of civilisation and intellectual development... their only courage is apathy and their valour consists in animal ferocity. A native soldier, of whatever rank, has no heroism, and he is ignorant of honour in every acceptation of the word.' (5) Gurkhas, by contrast, were considered not to be 'fully Asiatic', since they were brave and more loyal than other, non-heroic, dishonourable Asiatic peoples (6).

However, even when the Gurkhas were championed, it tended to be on the basis that their non-European racial features – their status as a Martial Race – made them perfect fighting machines. In the Victorian era, one writer said the great thing about the Gurkhas is that they do not have 'a very high estimate of the value of life'; they are 'less encumbered by the mental doubts or humanitarian sentiment [of Europeans], and thus not so moved by slaughter and mutilation' (7). This image of Gurkhas as peculiarly fearless and emotionless has been exploited by the British military and military historians right up to the modern period – and it has, as one critical author said in 1990, tended to 'deny the humanity of these soldiers' (8).

That Gurkhas are now being treated as second-class citizens, different even from those non-British, Commonwealth members of the military who are granted full residential rights in the UK, is not all that surprising: their origin is as a band of fighters more trustworthy than your average Asian but 'less equal' than your average Westerner. It is not merely New Labour thoughtlessness that has made these men second-class soldiers, but rather the long history of their cultivation as 'good wogs' whose lack of humanitarianism could be harnessed for British imperialist ends. As late as last year, three Gurkhas lost a High Court case in which they sought to challenge their payment of pensions that were around '24 per cent to 36 per cent' of normal military pensions (9). Such treatment is an ugly historical hangover from the fact that the Gurkhas have long been seen, effectively, as 24 to 36 per cent human.

The history of the Gurkhas explains the curious divide over their predicament today. The conservative wing of British society, those descended from the officer classes who look upon Gurkhas as their honourable servants, have enthusiastically embraced the new Gurkha cause. New Labour, meanwhile, which may be as militaristic as ever, but which lacks any institutional link to the old colonial practices of the past, seems completely desensitised to the 'Gurkha issue'. Now a middle-class party that draws its MPs from think-tanks rather than from actual tanks, it seems blasé about the Gurkhas. The televised stand-off between Joanna Lumley, that well-spoken daughter of colonialism, and Phil Woolas, the bumbling, bureaucratic, northern-voiced minister for immigration, captured well the divide on the Gurkha issue.

However, it would be wrong to see this as some profound class clash, as some no doubt fantasise that it is. Rather, the Gurkha campaign exposes the hollowing out of both big-C Conservatism and New Labour.

Colonialism by its very nature has racist connotations. British colonialism in particular was structured as a dictatorship, using violence to pacify the colonial subjects and to maintain order. There was no input from the colonized in the way that they were governed: The British Colonial Office in London made all the decisions concerning the colonies. The British also tended to choose a preferred ethnic group over all the others in the countries that they colonized. These preferred groups, usually a conservative minority within the country, were supported to the extent that they worked against the interests of their fellow Africans. For example, the British chose the Arab minority to lord it over the majority Africans in the Sudan and favored the Fulani in Nigeria. The British preferred ethnic societies with dictatorial and hierarchical systems like their own, and they recruited members of these ethnicities in disproportionate numbers into the colonial military. At independence, these soldiers often staged coups and removed the democratically elected civilian governments of their countries.

HISTORY OF BRITISH COLONIAL RULE IN AFRICA

It is important to note that the advent of British colonization of Africa coincided with the era of scientific racism as represented by social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). The British believed that because they had superior weaponry and were therefore more technologically advanced than the Africans, that they had a right to colonize and exploit the resources of the Africans in the name of promoting civilization. But it is inherently contradictory for an invading force to usher in "civilization."

Britain had many colonies in Africa: in British West Africa there was Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria, Southern Cameroon, and Sierra Leone; in British East Africa there was Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania (formerly Tanganyika and Zanzibar); and in British South Africa there was South Africa, Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Nyasaland (Malawi), Lesotho, Botswana, and Swaziland. Britain had a strange and unique colonial history with Egypt. The Sudan, formerly known as the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, was jointly ruled by Egypt and Britain, because they had jointly colonized the area. The joint colonial administration of the Sudan by Egypt and Britain was known as the condominium government. The British system of government affected the type of racial or ethnic problems that all of Britain's African colonies had during the colonial period, the immediate postcolonial period, and from the 1980s into the twenty-first century.

PRECOLONIAL RACIAL AND ETHNIC RELATIONS IN BRITISH COLONIAL AFRICA

Ethnic rivalries were not serious in precolonial Africa. The majority of ethnic nations lived in their independent small polities. There were, however, some large conquering empires: the Bugandan Empire in Uganda; the Zulus in South Africa; the Mwene Mutapa Empire of the Shona people in Zambia, or Great Zimbabwe; the Benin Empire; the kingdoms of the Yoruba (Ife, Oyo, and Ibadan); the Ashanti in Ghana; the Fulani Empire in northern Nigeria, which even tried to extend into regions of Sierra Leone; the Kanem-Bornu Empire around the Lake Chad area of northern Nigeria; and the Igbo of southeastern Nigeria, who lived in small democratic states with the few exceptions of some representative monarchies. But things changed with the British Empire's entrance into Africa.

TYPES OF BRITISH COLONIAL RULE IN AFRICA

The British employed various systems of governance in their African colonies. These were through the agency of (1) trading companies, (2) indirect rule, (3) the settler rule, and then the unique joint rule of the Sudan with the Egyptians known as the (4) condominium government.

Trading Companies . In the early years of colonialism, Britain granted private companies large territories to administer in Africa. Companies such as the United African Company and United Trading Company in West Africa, the Imperial British East Africa Company, and the British South Africa Company were formed by businesspersons who were interested only in exploiting and plundering the rich natural resources of the territories of Africa that they were allowed to govern. Illiterate African leaders were conned into signing over their sovereignty to the British. The British government provided charters for these companies, but the companies themselves paid for the expenses incurred in establishing and administering the colonies. To support their administrations, the companies set up their own systems of taxation and labor recruitment.

The Imperial British East Africa Company, founded in 1888, colonized Kenya for Britain, ruling there until 1893. The British South Africa Company, established in 1889 under the control of Cecil John Rhodes, used excessive force and coercion to colonize and rule Nyasaland (present-day Malawi), Northern Rhodesia (present-day Zambia), and Southern Rhodesia (present-day Zimbabwe); the company reigned over these colonies until 1923. None of these private companies were very profitable, so the British government eventually took them over.

Company rule on behalf of Britain was very harsh on the Africans as the companies practiced an apartheid-like system during their rule. In spite of the numerous blunders of these companies in running colonies in Africa, the British government allowed most of them to rule for a very long time. Interested only in making profits, the companies were ill suited to administer territories or colonies, and they found that doing so was neither easy nor profitable. To increase their profit margins, they employed racist and draconian policies. Unfortunately, the adverse policies they enacted were continued when the British government took over administration of the colonies. These policies had far-reaching effects that lasted into the postcolonial period.

Indirect Rule . Indirect rule, the brainchild of the British colonial administrator Frederick Lugard, became the main system the British used to administer their African colonies. The British used African traditional rulers to work on their behalf and help subjugate their fellow Africans. Although these Africans were nominally "ruling," the actual decisions rested with the British colonial officers. Lugard first experimented with indirect rule in northern Nigeria where the Fulani had established the Sokoto caliphate and emirship. As the system seemed to have worked in northern Nigeria, Lugard exported the system to southern Nigeria where it failed woefully in the Igbo areas of eastern Nigeria. Still Lugard took the system to East Africa where it again failed. Lugard wrongly believed that all the African societies were monarchies and that those that were not could become so with the establishment of chiefdoms.

In West Africa, the British had no pretensions about their attitude toward their colonies and colonial subjects. Britain did not want to be paternalistic like the French colonialists, and it did not practice the assimilation policies of the French. Thus, Britain did not attempt to make English persons out of the Africans. Although the British claimed that they used the indirect rule system because they wanted to preserve their colonies' indigenous cultures, the main reason was to minimize the cost of running the colonies while at the same time maximizing the exploitation of the resources. Britain ended up inventing new cultures for its colonies, thereby destroying the indigenous cultures. The British created new leaders (chiefs) who were invariably corrupt and who did not have the mandate of the Africans and were consequently not respected by the people they governed. Thus, this strategy more often than not failed woefully, as in Igboland in Nigeria.

In northern Nigeria, where the indirect system seemed to have worked, the ethnic relations were horrible. The Fulani emirs were very autocratic and corrupt. Non-Fulani and non-Muslims rioted many times to protest the misrule of the Fulani over them. Another aspect of misrule was the creation of synthetic political groupings by forcing the amalgamation of ethnic groups and native nations that had previously been independent, forming a polity dominated by British interests. Such a situation and the struggle for scarce resources helped to exacerbate ethnic tensions. During British colonialism in Nigeria, there were numerous massacres of minorities. These episodes of genocide have continued into the early twenty-first century.

The British policies in West Africa and East Africa led to the ethnic consciousness or subnationalism of most of the ethnic groups in these colonies. Ethnic rivalries between the major groups in Nigeria—the Igbo, Hausa-Fulani, and Yoruba, who constitute about 65 percent of the population of Nigeria—started during the British colonial period. Some of the ethnic groups, such as the Yoruba, the Igbo, and the Hausa, did not have pan-ethnic consciousness, and they resisted the British colonial structure. In Nigeria, the main political parties formed around ethnic affiliations: The National Convention of Nigerian Citizens, founded by Herbert Macaulay and championed by Nnamdi Azikiwe, was primarily centered in the Igbo-dominated Eastern Region; the Action Group, led by Obafemi Awolowo, was based in the traditional Yoruba area of the Western Region; and the Northern Peoples Congress, led by Ahmadu Bello and Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, was dominated by the Hausa-Fulani and based in the Northern Region. It was in the interest of the British to promote ethnic tensions in their colonies. The creation of antagonistic political parties helped to delay independence agitations within the colonies, and enabled the British to continue their uninterrupted plundering of resources in Africa. The case of Nigeria was similar to the situations of other British colonies in West Africa— Gambia, Sierra Leone, and Ghana.

Under the leadership of Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana may have been spared ethnic rivalries to a considerable extent. In Sierra Leone, the British fomented tensions between the colony of Freetown, which was dominated by former slaves, the Creoles; and the rest of the indigenous population, the Protectorate of Sierra Leone.

Settler Rule . Another system of British colonial administration was the settler rule system that occurred where Britain had large populations of European immigrants. These immigrants settled and established direct rule over the colonies in Africa especially in southern and eastern Africa. They planned to make Africa their permanent home. British settler colonies were founded primarily in South Africa, Southern and Northern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe and Zambia), and South-West Africa (Namibia). Settlers from Holland, Britain, Germany, and Portugal colonized these areas. In addition, settler rule was practiced in Kenya, a British colony in East Africa. These settlers, who came to Africa to exploit the natural resources, made sure that laws were enacted or forces created that enabled them to dominate the numerically larger African populations, economically, socially, and politically. In colonies with settler rule, there was harsher treatment of native Africans than in the colonies with the indirect rule system or where there were no sizable white settler populations. West Africa was spared settler rule because of the harsh hot climate and because of malaria. Malaria

Killed so many early European adventurers and colonial agents in West Africa that Europeans nicknamed it the "white person's grave."

Settlers regarded themselves to be naturally superior to the "natives," as the British called their African colonial subjects. They saw the Africans as people who must be subjected and who were good only for being domestics to the white settlers. The methods of oppression and repression by the European settler populations were not known in precolonial Africa. At least the internal conquerors in Africa prior to the Europeans did not see themselves as genetically superior to the conquered. The white settlers appropriated to themselves to the exclusion of the Africans all the good and arable lands. These lands were designated "crown property." This practice was notorious in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Kenya. Some of the postcolonial and independent African countries did the same thing; government officials nationalized huge tracts of communal lands and distributed it among themselves, their families, and their cronies. This occurred in Nigeria, for example, when the government passed the Land Use Decree of 1977.

The settler colonies later unilaterally declared independence from Britain. The first British colony in Africa to do this was South Africa. In 1910, after the Boer War (1899– 1902), the British gave all administrative and political powers to the European settler population in the provinces of Natal, Cape, OrangeFreeState, andTransvaal. However, the British removed Swaziland, Basutoland (present-day Lesotho), and Bechuanaland (present-day Botswana) from the Union of South Africa. These provinces became independent countries later.

The settler British colonies in Africa that declared their independence from Britain instituted minority governments. The worst case of minority governments was the apartheid government of South Africa. The South African government under the Boer-led Nationalist Party legalized the separation of the races and the domination of the majority black population by the minority white population. In South Africa whites made up less than 20 percent of the population and the blacks 80 percent. Under the apartheid system, blacks were forced to live on nonarable lands and in urban ghettoes or townships. "Miscegenation" and marriages between the races were legally prohibited, and blacks had no rights in the running of the affairs of the country. The white minority government used violence and terrorism against blacks. They arrested, tortured, and killed innocent black men, women, and children. Later the barren lands allotted to blacks were divided into Bantustans and granted nominal independence.

For 10,000 years the population of the island of Tasmania lived in complete isolation from the rest of humanity. In 1803 the government of Britain began to settle Australia with criminals. 73 years later the last Tasmanian died. This completed the total annihilation of the residents of Tasmania 6,000 in total, by the Australian settlers.

After a visit to Australia, Charles Darwin, 19th century British biologist and geologist, said, “Death pursues the native in every place where the European sets foot.” On the visit, he met the European settlers that had settled on the hunting and gathering lands, and sacred places of the indigenous peoples. The European settlers expelled the indigenous people from their lands and in the process many aboriginals were killed by disease, as they had no immunity to the diseases the Europeans brought with them, starvation, and intentional killing in a hopeless power struggle. The most extreme part of this story took place on a small island near Australia called Tasmania.

The mountainous island of Tasmania lies 320 kilometers off the coast of Australia. Europeans discovered it in 1642, when they found around 6,000 habitants who lived as hunter-gatherers, who were of similar origin to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. They used more primitive technology than any other people in the modern era and manufactured only a few simple tools from wood and stone. They had no contact with the outside world until the arrival of Europeans.

At the end of the 18th century, the British began to settle the island. Mainly, they sent criminals who had to be removed from mainland Australian colonies due to severe crimes, as well as a number of seal hunters. This encounter between two extremely different populations was murderous from the very beginning. The European settlers kidnapped Tasmanian children for servants and women for concubines; they killed or mutilated the men and conquered their hunting land in an attempt to expel them from their territory. A lone shepherd killed nineteen Tasmanians with a nail rifle. Four other shepherds ambushed a group of natives, killed thirty of them and dumped their bodies off a cliff known today as Victory Hill.

The Extermination:

The Tasmanians attempted retaliation, and as part of the effort to prevent the escalation of a war, in April of 1828 Governor Arthur ordered that all Tasmanians must leave the part of the island settled by Europeans. To enforce the order, government-sponsored “patrol teams” composed of prisoners led by policemen were established. The “patrol teams” chased and killed Tasmanians as the soldiers had the authority to immediately kill any Tasman they found in the settled areas. Afterwards, a price was set for native heads: five British pounds for an adult, two pounds for a child caught alive. This pursuit was known as “catching blacks”. It became a business venture for both private and official patrols teams. A commission was established to recommend an official policy on the native issue. The commission considered options such as catching the natives and selling them into slavery, poisoning them, and catching them in traps or hunting them with dogs. Ultimately, the commission decided to continue the price system and to use mounted policemen in the hunt.

In 1830 a missionary by the name of George Augustus Robinson was appointed the task of collecting all remaining Tasman natives and bringing them to Flinders Island, 50 kilometers from Tasmania. Robinson was certain he acted in the best interests of the Tasmanians. With the help of a native Tasmanian woman named Truganini, he managed to gather the remaining natives, first by persuasion that their fate would be worse if they did not surrender, and afterwards by threatening them violently. Many of his captives died on the way to Flinders; some two hundred arrived alive, the remaining survivors were a population of 6,000.

In Flinders, Robinson sought to convert and “civilize” the survivors. The island was run in a prison-like fashion. Conditions were difficult with constant exposure to strong winds and almost no fresh water. Children were separated from their parents in order to facilitate their “civilization” process. Scarcity of food led to malnutrition and also diseases spread killing many natives. The governor saved on expenditures in the hopes that more natives would die out. By 1869 only Truganini, one more man and one more woman remained alive.

The fate of other Aboriginal tribes:

Hundreds of Aboriginal tribes who lived in Australia were destroyed when the British colonists arrived. They lived a very different life to the thousands of the British who settled there in the 19th century. The settlers established large farms on what was once their collective agricultural land, challenging and eventually destroying their largely nomadic society. Mounting tensions led to mutual violence, however the settlers prevailed and expelled them to less fertile lands. The British saw the Aboriginals as inferior and treated them brutally. During the 19th century, the dozens of recorded massacres resulted in the deaths of at least 10,000 Aboriginals, including women and children. Indigenous Australians found themselves living on reserves and rapidly losing their culture, language and native land. It wasn’t until the second half of the 20th century that they began to revive their lost customs and traditions.

After the genocide:

The last three Tasmanians interested scientists, who believed that Tasmanians were the missing link between men and monkeys. After the last Tasman man died, competing teams of doctors fought over his body. They dug up his corpse from its grave and re-buried it after removing organs; they also stole the organs from one another. The last woman, Truganini, feared similar treatment of her body and requested before her death in 1876 to be buried at sea, but to no avail. Her fears were justified; the British Royal Company exhumed her skeleton and displayed it in the Tasmanian Museum. It remained on display there until 1947, when the Museum gave in to complaints of poor taste and removed the skeleton to a special room that only authorized scientists were allowed to enter. This move also gave rise to criticism and in 1976, the 100th anniversary of Truganini’s death, her skeleton was cremated against the wishes of the Museum and her ashes scattered at sea as per her wishes.

In Tasmania the Australian colony “solved” its native problem, by reaching a nearly final solution. It supposedly succeeded in getting rid of all its natives; in actuality a few children born to Tasmanian women and white male seal hunters remained alive. Many whites envied the termination of the Tasmanian problem and sought to replicate it. Today the opinions of white Australians on their murderous history vary. Government policy and personal opinions of many whites show an increasing appreciation for native peoples, but other whites deny responsibility for the genocide. In 1982, a leading Australian newspaper published a letter written by a woman who denied the occurrence of genocide. The letter claimed that the settlers had been peaceful, moral people, while the Tasmanians were, “treacherous, murderous, war mongering, filthy, covetous, parasite-infested and disturbed.” She wrote, “It was pure coincidence that they had died when the Europeans arrived, due to disease prior to European settlement.” She claimed that the settlers were armed only for the purposes of self-defense and never killed more than 41 natives at a time.

The absolute obliteration of the Tasmanian tribes is a ‘Mark of Cain’ to humanity; annunciation on the start of a new age: ‘Age of Genocide’.

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term. Additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.

In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint.

There has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.